Army equipment needed most by Romania?

[PanzerKing]

I got this idea from the Third Reich Forum about the Canadian Army.

So what is it? What does the army need most? Aircraft? Ships? Tanks? Guns? Anything at all!

[Alexandru H.]

Uniformes, food, boots, respect....

[inahurry]

Brains for the politicians.

[cuski]

Money. With that comes everything else.

[Dr_V]

Well, it's not the easyest question. Let's try to asess each matter individually.

First, I agree bothe with "cuski" and "inahurry" and I'll ad the need of competent management of the funds. When money are scarse, they should be spent with care.

Our Navy will never be a powerfull one. Even if Romania will rise echonomicaly, we don't really need a large Navy. For a rather small country that has direct access only to the Black Sea (an "interior" sea) plus the Danube, the Navy's role is mostly coast defence. In addition a bit of resources to escort merchant ships and to ocasionally take part in a multi-national force might help. Ships are very expansive and only the nations that need a powerfull Navy must spend much on them.
For the time being I don't believe that we should aquire more big warships, the 2 English fregates are already baught and should be enough. A good idea would be an operational sub, maybe Delfinul can be repaired. The real necesity is to modernise the equipment of the Coast Guard & Fishery protection in our waters (including Danube).

The Air Forces really need new fighters. The auxiliarry planes are not a priority (I mean transports, trainers, etc.), we can manage with what we've got now. Some effective hellicopters are also available. Of course, it's plenty of room for better, but we must stay realistic.

For the Army, things are a bit better. Indeed we'd need some modern tanks, but the armored forces are not in an accute need of vehicles. Part of the internal need for guns is covered by our local manufacturers, maybe you've heared that Romanian made weapons are good, we even export quite a bit. The thing our Army really laks is modern technology (electronics, communications, detection equipment and some types of rockets). Plus money to propperly train all the troops and pay them as it would be aproppiate. Only part of our troops are at the high level demonstrated by the squads sent in Irak, Bosnia or Afganisthan.

[Victor]

QUOTE

The Air Forces really need new fighters. The auxiliarry planes are not a priority (I mean transports, trainers, etc.), we can manage with what we've got now.

On the contrary, the transport aircraft are more of a priority than the fighters are. We only have four C-130s, which obviously are not serviceable at the same time. I do not see why you consider the old An-24 fleet as good, while you totally reject the modernized MiG-21s.

[Dr_V]

I have 3 motives.
One is that Romania does not need many big transport planes, at least for internal use, as the country is rather small. I see the defence as more important.
Second, if the fighters are complex aircraft, with little room for flying with malfunctions and their ultility dropps fast if they have problems, the transport planes have a larger marge n that matter. AN 24 was at its time one of the best transport planes, being famous for the low rate of crashes (and that is not from a newspaper, but from a friend who was an aviation colonel and piloted such a plane). It is maybe the only transport aircraft that can land safely with only one engine working even if it's loaded.
Third, it's a matter of priorityes. 4 Hercules can manage the needs of the small units we send outside the country, for internal needs the old ANs can still perform good enough. And the old Russian transport helicopters are also still working. Obviousely Romania must make a choice, there are no funds to buy both fighters and transports.

[Victor]

Exactly, there is a matter of priorities. Our air defense is well taken care by the Lancers and NATO (that is in the absurd case we come under attack form either Ukraine, Rep. of Moldavia or Serbia). What we will see soon both in NATO and in the EU Army (if it ever becomes a reality) is the need for rapid deployment forces within our army. And this requires Hercules aircraft at least. The four we have are not going to be sufficient.

Btw, the main transport helicopters are the IAR-330 Puma and IAR-316B Allouette. There much fewer Mi-8s.

[Dr_V]

You've made a good point Victor. I've neglected the future need to deploy larger units in a quick manner. Thaugh I keep my oppinion about a modern and more effective fighter force.

One thing worryes me. In the event of a war (I mean a major conflict, multi-national if not WW3; our neighbours won't attack us by themselves) will NATO honor its commitment to us as members? It's not an easy question, because in the event when a number of NATO states are attacked simultanousely I'm not sure that Romania will be supported as much as some more influent and powerfull states.
Of course, this is an improbable scenario in the close future. But I see that every day Romania tends to rely more and more on its foreign allies and hystory has proven that in a crisis the smaller partner is often the first to be abandoned.

If you wonder who am I fearing that can attack Romania, there are 2 powers I have in mind: Russia and a possible islamic coallition that could start WW3. Of course Russia is closer, but in a world-wide conflict nobody is far enough.
Why I don't see our neighbours attacking us? Because not even Ukraine (the most powerfull one) would risk being isolated and attacked by NATO, as is a limited scale conflict NATOs resources are far grater than those of any such state and the West can't wait to extend its controll in the East.

[PanzerKing]

Well regarding future conflicts...who do you really have to fear? I doubt Russia or the Ukraine will want to start a war just for the hell of it. It would have to something pretty big to fight a war over.

[Dr_V]

I did said that is an improbable scenario. At this time the possibility of a world war started in the middle-east is a bit more probable, but not much. Let's hope that the USA is wise enough to avoid it.

Personally I hope that even the terrorism will be contained or even eradicated. I'll never aprove someone who kills inocent civilians, whatever his cause would be. I believe that if an organisation as Al Quaida would have some balls it would attack military targets, not people who can't defend themselves.

[Der Maresal]

Riot Gear!

most definately! Clubs, Pepper Spray, tear gas and Electric prod guns..
..we will need a whole arsenal of 'crowd controll' -

:? :?

[Florin]

QUOTE

............   If you wonder who am I fearing that can attack Romania, there are 2 powers I have in mind: Russia and a possible islamic coallition that could start WW3. .........

The only Islamic country who has nuclear missiles is Pakistan. Her missiles are tactical, i.e. short-range. They had India in mind with their nuclear program.

Iran is trying hard, however. Right now this country is under close scrutiny, but who knows?

An Islamic coalition will not start any war other than against Israel in the next 40-50 years, simply because even for them it is obvious that they cannot win a conventional war, between conventional armies, if the enemy is NATO, or even the United States alone.
As I explained to my supervisor and to my American colleagues on September 11th, 2001, all the top technical knowledge of the world is roughly in the United States, Europe (including Russia) and Japan. The rest of the world may be tough economic competitors, due to low manufacturing prices, but look what are the export items, and look who are the leaders in the field of high-tech weaponry.

Regards,
Florin

PS: I would not fear about Russia as long as Romania would not try to annex Moldavia and Transnistria, which as far it is predictable, it is out of question.
Now I dare to submit my personal fear. Well, I am afraid that the Romanian central government will gradually lose control over the areas inhabited by the Hungarian minority, to a point when the latter will declare herself independent. In such a situation, if the Romanian government of the moment will desire to act strongly to save what can still be saved, do not expect any equidistance from Western Europe in judging the matter. Unless we will be a NATO member by the time, they will be ready to military interfere against Romania. No illusions about that.

[Florin]

QUOTE

I got this idea from the Third Reich Forum about the Canadian Army. So what is it? What does the army need most? Aircraft? Ships? Tanks? Guns? Anything at all!

I'll try to answer straight, unlike many other posts here.
Romania does not have money to buy enough fighter jets, enough radiolocation units and enough anti-aircraft missiles to be deployed on the ground (The standard story on the planet, these days.) But even if they would exist, such things are the first targets of a surprise missile and aerial attack, and usually knocked out from start.

Thus the future is the portable anti-aircraft and anti-missile rocket, light enough to be carried by one person, but with a range long enough to reach 6-7 km altitude. Even better, such portable rocket should be useful against ground vehicles and aerial targets in the same time. But with the speed of the modern airplanes, and assuming the individual will not enjoy the help of a radar, there will be only 4-5 seconds to react, and in many cases the target will be too fast to be heard, or to high to be seen by eyes.
The precision of a single individual will be very low, so the only solution will be a mass-distributed weapon, by tens of thousands of pieces. And then will be a matter of mathematical probability - if 20 people will fire 20 projectiles, at least one should reach the target.

[Iamandi]

Chinese new (from fabrication line) engines for our LanceRs, because soon, we may fly with SOIM, L-39 & 29, An-2.

Iama